I’ve been reading these four books simultaneously the past few weeks as I try to understand the Alice in Wonderland ”We’re All Mad Here” dynamic that seems to define the participants of America’s political culture:

Touched with Fire: Manic Depression and the Artistic Temperament by Kay Redfield Jamison argues that bipolar disorder fuels artistic and creative ability. She documents how the symptoms for a number or mood disorders appeared in the lives of many of the past centuries’ most prominent writers, painters, composers, and especially poets. Jamison explains how the manic depressive’s experience of swinging from mood to mood allows the artist to continually create and analyze from a variety of perspectives, thus being able to create groundbreaking new works. (I mentioned Touched with Fire and the relationship between bipolar and cool in this article from October about Cool and Baby Boomer culture.) In the political contests we see the same thing — the ability to launch off some cool retort to a debate moderator comes from the same psychic well as the poet’s verse. Psychological abnormalities fuel magickal ability and can be utilized regardless of whether the spell is a political slogan, or rock lyric, innovative line of computer code, or illicit barroom seduction.

John D. Gartner’s The Hypomanic Edge builds on Jamison’s thesis and applies it to American businessmen, explorers, and entrepreneurs. In six chapters he examines the psychology of Christopher Columbus, John Winthrop, Roger Williams, William Penn, Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Carnegie, the Hollywood mogul families of the Selznicks and the Mayers, and the human genome scientist Craig Venter. Gartner puts forth a startling thesis: the American character and personality is innately different at the genetic level because we are a nation of immigrants. We’re just naturally going to have more of these intense, emotional, risk-taker, sometimes self-destructive people than other non-immigrant countries. Gartner writes,

A small empirical literature suggests that there are elevated rates of manic-depressive disorder among immigrants, regardless of what country they are moving from or to. America, a nation of immigrants, has higher rates of mania than every other country studied (with the possible exception of New Zealand, which topped the United States in one study)…. While we have no cross-cultural studies of hypomania, we can infer that we would find increased levels of hypomania among immigrant-rich nations like America, since mania and hypomania run together in the same families.

Thus it’s no surprise that this would be the nature of our leaders today — it was centuries ago.

Nassir Ghaemi’s A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness focuses on political and military leaders (this Washington Times review is a good, quick summary, here’s an excerpt):

I agree with Andrew Klavan that Ann Coulter is tremendously underrated as a thinker, polemicist, and prose stylist. Her newest book is one of the pieces that answers this essay's puzzle of questions.

The first three chapters of Paul Johnson’s Intellectuals explore the amoral lives and cruel personalities of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Percy Shelley, and Karl Marx. All three fit the same pattern: deeply magnetic, magickal creativity and intellect capable of manifesting world-changing ideas. And absolute personal life disasters with hateful, arrogant, uber-narcissist temperaments. They abused everyone they loved. Shelley is also featured prominently in Touched with Fire.

These books examine the unmasked, inner worlds of major figures in the political, economic, and cultural life of the West. How much of our political culture are symptoms of psychologically disturbed, destructive people trying to project their own personal misery onto the rest of us? How much careerist workaholism is a tragic attempt to avoid dealing with one’s own brokenness? Are radicals attracted to apocalyptic political narratives of a dying world and collapsing society because such visions mirror their own internal mood swings? Is Johnson really on to something when he links Marx’s early poetry to the destructive political theology later defined in Das Kapital? Is it a coincidence that Marxist and Rousseauian political theory — which have proven suicidal for societies — were conceived by self-destructive men? What does it mean that we can see depression among several of the founders and other historical defenders of freedom such as Lincoln and Churchill? Does it mean that the great battles of human history — that stretch out across the millennia and involved hundreds of millions of people — boil down to contests between those who have mastered their demons and those mastered by them?

I don’t know yet but it’s a subject I’m going to keep exploring.

******

Back when I was a Chomskyite “progressive” in college I always used to look down on the “simple-minded” people who supposedly made their presidential vote on something superficial: which candidate would I rather have a beer with? At a time when I believed religiously that the United States was committing genocide over in Iraq, this question almost seemed offensive.

And of course I resented this argument because in my bones I knew that it made George W. Bush beat John Kerry. Yet even after my intellectual migration to Tea Party conservatism I still maintained an almost “elitist” mentality when it came to how one should vote. “Think about the issues! Who cares if you like the person or not? It’s the policies that matter! We need to vote for the ideas that will fix this country. That’s what we need in our leader: someone with the right ideas who understands how our government is supposed to actually function.” (Not coincidentally this is basically the argument for Gingrich.)

But what if actually the superficial approach is right? What if we should follow our hearts instead of our heads? What if actually we should gravitate toward whoever in the race is the most decent, most moral, most ethical, most friendly, most likable, most sincerely spiritual and religious, and above all most upstanding person?

This is just a rephrasing of the question I posed on the first page which I now submit for debate and discussion to PJM’s commenting community:

Who among the GOP presidential contenders most has their personal demons in check?

David Swindle is the associate editor of PJ Media. He writes and edits articles and blog posts on politics, news, culture, religion, and entertainment. He edits the PJ Lifestyle section and the PJ columnists. Contact him at DaveSwindlePJM @ Gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @DaveSwindle.
He has worked full-time as a writer, editor, blogger, and New Media troublemaker since 2009, at PJ Media since 2011. He graduated with a degree in English (creative writing emphasis) and political science from Ball State University in 2006. Previously he's also worked as a freelance writer for The Indianapolis Star and the film critic for WTHR.com. He lives in Los Angeles with his wife and their Siberian Husky puppy Maura.

Click here to view the 87 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

87 Comments, 36 Threads

1.
proreason

Ah, but the problem remains: there are only eight candidates to choose from, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Perry, Bachman, Santorum, Huntsman and the madman.

Eliminate the madman without another thought.
Bachman, Santorum and Huntsman all are depending on miracles.
Perry is happier now that he recognizes his inability debate Obama.
Cain, a nice fellow, might acquire presidential knowledge in about 8 years.

So, in the real world, the one without genies and lamps, there are two candidates to choose from. Or rather, those of us who wish to defeat the most dangerous person on the planet have two candidates to choose from: Mitt and Newt.

Fortunately, they are both strong candidates. Unfortunately, they both have serious flaws.

Basically, it boils down to whether you want the safer choice, Mitt, the man who will find the middle in a labyrinth of angles; or the riskier choice, Newt, the man who has sinned more than any other politician in the history of humanity but has twice defeated the minotaur.

You can list their faults until the sun rises in the West, but the fact remains. They are the two choices.

Savaging either one of them does no good for those of us who wish to defeat the most dangerous person on the planet. Pick your poison.

Agreed, anyone who supports Romney as being anything other than a liberal is, indeed, stupid. And any party who continues to thing that being the slightly “lessor of two evils” is the best approach to solving the country’s problems, is, really stupid.

The republican party is only called “stupid” by those who are themselves to stupid or ignorant or both, or power hungry, to understand the blessings of liberty and freedom and who don’t mind living in servitude to their masters.

An excellent comment as usual proreason and a total rebuttal of the basis of the entire article. We have one choice and we had better make it one that might actually save this nation, and that is not Mittens.

Cain, a nice fellow, might acquire presidential knowledge in about 8 years.

Obama has been President for 3 years without knowledge, where’s the problem? Current knowledge is like following the train tracks, you’ll always get there but don’t expect anything new or different, same old same old. I guess that’s what attracts me to Cain, the hope of something different and it can’t get much worse than the current loser.

Give me a candidate who can take a media hack who asks him a “gotcha” question, clearly explain the real issue to the listeners, then, with a smile on his face, rip out the hack’s guts and leave him bleeding on the ground.

I am sick of milquetoast candidates with all the personality of a wet sponge and a backbone to match.

Any one of the GOP candidates stands head and shoulders above the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but some are better than others. I prefer the genie.

Only someone who doesn’t know anything about Herman Cain would write him off as “stupid”. Newt’s the smartest conman in the room. How quick we forget how he handled the Tea Party and real conservatives, not to mention his other flip flops and his book “Contract With the Earth”.

“You can list their faults until the sun rises in the West, but the fact remains. They are the two choices.”

Revised:
“”You can list their faults until the sun rises in the West, but the fact remains. Based on my read of what the polls say and the way the political wind is blowing at this moment and the way I’m feeling right now they are the two choices.”

I ask you what your answer is to the final question I posed:
“Who among the GOP presidential contenders most has their personal demons in check?”

I’m not smart enough to figure out the candidates’ mastery of their public and private demons, and besides, it’s not as if all American presidents have been saints or humble servants. So demons isn’t as big an issue for me as it appears to be for you.

I agree with the reluctant Republican voting base that Romney and Newt are the most likely to defeat little lenin. They have the best mastery of the combination of the issues, their own views, and the media. It would also be foolish to say that things can’t change, but I don’t expect any eureka moments to impact the fate of the other six. The way I see it, the most likely wild card is a brokered convention, and I don’t consider that very likely either.

But you know, if Newt’s demons prove too much for the public, which will be evident soon enough in his poll numbers, I’ll move to Romney.

I’m the only person willing to say that by far his most important criteria is the ability to defeat little lenin. A lot plays into that, including demons. The only candidate who doesn’t meet my threshhold of acceptance on the issues is Ron Paul. In a normal year, I would parse their ideology more fiercely. This year, given the weakness of all but Newt and Mitt, I just want the one who is most likely to win. If Ron Paul somehow gets the nomination, my election choice will be to build a bomb shelter.

You’re welcome. But I’m still curious as to your thoughts on my question. Or perhaps you reject my question as the necessary square one starting point for judging a candidate? If the personal demons question isn’t the first litmus test then what is?

In a nutshell, with the fate of the country and possibly the world on the line, Newt’s personal demons don’t climb very high on my list of concerns. The main impact demons will have on my personal decision is if the public gets turned off to him. But if it turns out Newt buggers little boys or rapes women, that will matter to me even without the disapproval of the public. Infidelity, this year, facing the most dangerous person on the planet? not so much. Ego? hardly any. Spinning the truth to beat little lenin? not at all.

Again, there are only 8 people left to choose from. I don’t even feel a pang of guilt about being less than pure in my evaluation of them. If it emerges that one of them is perfect, I’ll reconsider.

So in other words you now admit that you didn’t actually read the article. Your answer here ignores the fact that I already rebutted the argument you’re now making. Yet you respond to me with it as though I hadn’t.

“So in other words you now admit that you didn’t actually read the article.”

I did, except the last part that became tedious and boring.

But unlike yourself, I didn’t find your agrument compelling in the least. Prove to me that Newt is an axe murderer, and you will persuade me. Infidelity and clever disingenuousness, not so much. In another circumstance, it might be different. With lenin’s heir about to seal his deal, your version of moral purity is the least of my concerns.

You dismiss my argument because you don’t understand it. (And part of not understanding it probably comes with giving up reading the article once you stopped understanding it.) You want to just dismiss me as a moralist.

John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and Anthony Weiner weren’t ax murders. But their hypomanic temperament sabotaged their careers and their supporters’ hopes. This isn’t about morality or sex. It’s about judgment, temperament, and sanity. Here’s the paragraph that your brain doesn’t want to deal with:

When Gingrich groupies point to Newt’s third marriage and conversion to Catholicism as having given him greater stability then the pro-Newt case has revealed itself: a blind leap of faith much shakier than the probably to which Cain fans still cling. You want me to trust that the basic psychological orientation not to mention the flaws of character that nearly destroyed a man in his 50s have been magically dissolved by the time he’s in his 60s? So much so that I should trust his judgment and temperament with my family’s lives?

ah, the you’re stupid argument. From somebody who waters down his own argument with three pages of scattered flights of fancy; and from someone who doesn’t even bother to acknowledge that private and public decision making might not be inextricable connected.

You have posed a question few people are concerned about. But hey, exorcise your own demons and make your case, just as the people who attacked Cain have made their case. We’ll see how personal events of 20 years ago that are closer to normal behavior than criminality stack up against the overwhelming desire to defeat the lead gun aimed at the United States of America. So far, the interest seems to be in Newt’s financial dealings. But I assume you and your fellow moralists will have your day in the court of public opinion as well.

Maybe you have a good chance of taking Gingrich out, as your fellow travelers did with Cain. I stongly oppose Cain, but for reasons other than morality. But that’s just me. You are you.

If Gingrich falls, we still have Romney. He probably has no flaws at all.

Well, yeah, it is kind of stupid to argue with an author about his article when you haven’t even read all of it. And then to pose arguments to him that he already answered in the piece. I mean you could always just fess up instead of blaming me for your intellectual laziness and prejudice. Shouldn’t that at least be Rule #1 of internet trolling? If you’re going to try and argue about an article you should at least read the whole thing so you don’t embarrass yourself?

“You have posed a question few people are concerned about.”

The Bloomberg poll I cited indicates that quite a few — almost half of all voters — are very concerned about it. (Or is that another part of the article that you didn’t bother reading before you felt confident enough to argue about it?) It’s just the people who want to ignore the problem of human evil who are not concerned about. The need to avoid dealing with human nature is a universal. And it plagues plenty on the so-called Right too.

Internet trolls who hide behind pseudonyms and argue with strawman versions of my ideas don’t hurt my feelings. And it’s no blow to my ego that I’m writing ideas other people don’t have the brain power to handle.

I’m not trying to “bring down” Newt or anyone else. I’m just writing an article to provoke thought and discussion on the qualities we need to look for in our leaders.

“I’m writing ideas other people don’t have the brain power to handle.”

what an egomaniac.

You are peddling the idea that presidential choices should be made based on a person’s personal morality, and trying to disguise it by suggesting that, of all things, people should examine the candidates “demons”.

Junior high stuff. Next this dolt will be throwing spitballs at me.

An honest person would say that he doesn’t like Newt’s marital history and won’t even consider him for that reason. Then you would simply be wrong, but at least would have something besides your nonsensical “majic” to advocate.

“An honest person would say that he doesn’t like Newt’s marital history and won’t even consider him for that reason.”

Well, I am an honest person and I’ve said that in different words. His marital history disqualifies him for me and at least half of potential voters. What you don’t want to deal with is WHY I don’t like Newt’s marital history and why it is symbolic of something much bigger than “personal life” and “personal morality.” You don’t want to deal with the bigger issues of temperament, judgment, and egomania.

“what an egomaniac.”

You’re projecting out onto me what you ignore in your candidate and yourself. It takes a huge ego to not even read an entire article and then try and argue with the writer about it. Perfectly reasonable, intelligent people can disagree with my ideas. (You don’t appear to be one of them.) I’ve got good friends who support Newt.

“Then you would simply be wrong, but at least would have something besides your nonsensical “majic” to advocate.”

And you’re just further confirming that you’re unable to dig beneath the most superficial understandings of issues.

Your whining is becoming more tediuous than your writing. But at least it’s consistent with writing stuff few people can yawn their way through.

As someone whose approval you obviously covet, my advice to you is more self discipline. Cut the words from 2,000 to 1,000 then to 500. More people will pay more attention, and you won’t be so angry about all the stupid people who you are convinced can’t understand the genius behind the random eruption of words and loosely related thoughts. And it goes without saying, dump the adolescent themes.

I’m not whining, you’re trolling and violating rule #3 of the commenting guidelines.

It’s rude to give unsolicited advice. And given that you’re an internet troll with a pseudonym I have no reason to believe you know anything about writing. If you did you’d have the guts to go by your real name and your handle would like to a blog or website filled with your glorious writings.

Here’s a better idea: if you don’t like reading my articles you can just skip them or if you can’t help but continue trolling then I’ll just start deleting your comments when you’re more interested in harassing me than responding to the ideas in the article. But thanks for letting me know that you’re apparently only able to handle arguments that can be expressed in 500 words.

And I’m not angry at anyone and so far you’re the only one arguing against a strawman position that I don’t hold.

Dave, maybe you didn’t intend it but by stating the obvious in your article you helped highlight the choice we all have as conservative primary voters. But hey, what part of obvious elludes you? Frankly, I read all of your article thinking to myself, is this guy shilling for Romney like half of Fox News is ? or does he just think we all should be surprised and impressed at his “conclusions”?

Personally I don’t care. And I think at least 3/4 of the country has been inured against Newt’s kind of “personal demons” during the Clinton administration. Clinton still commands $100K per speaking appearance. Newt’s past indiscretions may hurt him with Christian fundamentalists, but they are never completely satisfied with anyone. But as for me, I will vote for Elmer Fudd if he runs against Obama.

“What if actually we should gravitate toward whoever in the race is the most decent, most moral, most ethical, most friendly, most likable, most sincerely spiritual and religious, and above all most upstanding person?”

Just last night, we were discussing this with friends. They felt that we don’t have time for those pesky “social” issues right now (referring to Santorum) and had to go with someone like Newt who knew how Washington works. I don’t agree. I think that’s been the problem, and your suggestion here needs much more serious consideration. A candidate with common sense can recruit the best and the brightest as consultants, but a candidate of poor character can’t do much to change that.

So, you would rather concede the election to Obama, who wants to legalize marriage between gays, rather than to a conservative “candidate of poor character”? Multiple divorces are common in our society, and so is infidelity. Does not make it right, but it’s certainly not illegal. It’s just a question of morality.

Newt has a trainload full of personal baggage. However wherever he goes he’s still the smartest guy in the room. He’s a deadly debater, a great speaker and knows every corner of public policy.

Maybe he’s going to be our Churchill, I certainly hope so. When Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940 it was conceded that he was smart, eloquent and experienced. However he wasn’t “trusted.” He had been all over the political map during his “wilderness years” out of office and had made some pretty bad mistakes in opposing Dominion status for India and staunchly supporting Edward VIII in the “abdication crisis.” Most Conservatives (the party not the ideaology) couldn’t stand him and Labour deeply mistrusted him.

I grant that Churshill wasn’t elected to the post (he was appointed by the King) but his energy, courage and driving intellect surmounted the crisis faced by Great Britain. We are in crisis times now. Maybe we will get lucky.

This is very well written and well argued article. However, I think one of the flaws is you do not make a compelling case for any of other candidates (maybe “The Case for Mitt” is on its way?). My piece in favor of Newt (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/11/the-case-for-newt-and-against-herman/) was based on who is running for office. If Allen West or Chris Christie were running, Newt might not be my guy. At this point, the race is between Newt and Mitt, as Cain has proven himself totally incompetent with regards to foreign affairs. Mitt, who I would be satisfied with as our nominee, is not inspiring and he does not see the big picture like Newt does.

I admit that Newt’s a risk, but his upside is limitless. I think he can be our Churchill. I also must say I think “Chambers’” post above is right on.

In other words, Mr Levine has adjusted his thinking to the reality of the situation. There are only 8 candidates and one of them will be the nominee. Whoever that person is, he or she will have strengths and weaknesses.

A fairly well-known rule of interviewing job applicants is that if you have 5 firm requirements, you have eliminated the world. With a pool of 8, it is safe to assume that you can eliminate them all with fewer than 5 firm requirements.

So you admit that my characterization of the pro-Newt position is correct. Ultimately you cannot rebut the nature of his hypomanic temperament and its inherent dangers, you can only quietly agree with me but try and downplay it. It’s a leap of faith. Just as Romney is a leap of faith. Just as Perry is a leap of faith. Just as Cain is a leap of faith. We behave politically in imitation of how we behave theologically. This argument that is going on here is just another manifestation of what was once Jewish rabbis arguing over the meaning of the talmud thousands of years ago and what was Catholics and Protestants arguing over the Bible a few hundred years ago. Arguing over which leap of faith is less dangerous, which interpretation of the texts and the data synthesizes together all the variables in the most harmonious way.

You say you would support Cain and Parry over Newt, which I find mind boggling. Do you think those two would be more electable than Newt in a general election–after the public saw them face off in a debate against Obama? The American people are far less forgiving of incompetence than of moral failings. Many people think Newt has changed and has become more mature. Cain and Perry will remain incompetent.

Why is it so mind boggling to you that the main criterion I’m looking for is for someone to be a good person and trustworthy? That’s more important to me than someone having a bunch of political facts in their head that they can spin out in impressive ways in debate. When Republicans elect amoral men they get Presidents like Richard Nixon.

And you’re still ignoring virtually all the arguments made in my article and just asking me to take the faith leap that Gingrich is a good person now. Won’t do it. Life experience has taught me that people have to EARN my trust and respect, not just get it by default.

“Look, we know you’re crazy. You’re running for President — a job where all of a sudden you’re target #1 for every evil person on the planet. This is dangerous. Some would say suicidal. We accept that you’re crazy. You probably have some degree of hypomania, bipolar, cyclothymia, hyperthymia or other related mood disorder — most super successful artists, leaders, and businessmen do. That’s fine. But what we need to know right now in no uncertain terms: do you control your crazy or does your crazy control you?”

Sad, but when people like Teddy Roosevelt or Calvin Coolidge ran for president, Americans did not have to ask these questions to a person running for president. Strength of character, integrity, having clear core principles, and devotion to public service was all you really needed. Pity that isn’t true today. Shame, really. The world was a lot simpler (and trusting) back then.

Dave, You have mentioned Newt’s conversion & divorces as problems. So I will briefly explain from a Catholic perspective on why some of those demon’s may have been exorcised.

In order for Newt to convert he had to “fix” his personal life, ie divorces, by going through the annulment process. This process entails some sort of spiritual & psychological analysis—- Why did he divorce, did he learn anything from it,… that can sometimes entail short term therapy to make sure he does not repeat the past major, marital mistakes. Obviously when one goes through this exercise, all aspects of one’s life will be examined.

I believe that is what Newt did, not only during the annulment process but also possibly during Catholic initiation process. He examined his life & I am confident he will not repeat those troubles that could have impeded his acceptance into his new religion. Like my fellow evangelical conservatives, I to believe in forgiveness & redemption & that is why I am giving another look at Newt. Also, because of his other qualities of communication, brains, effectiveness, etc…

It’s interesting that we’re suddenly seeing all these “MItt’s the guy.” and “Why you shouldn’t vote for the other guys” articles. During this campaign it seems that whenever the Republican Establishment’s favorite candidate is in peril of not fulfilling his destiny they all come out with articles such as this.

You’ve already said that the overriding qualification is that our candidate be able to defeat The MOst Dangerous Man On The Planet, hereafter to be referred to as LIttle Zero. Either MItt or Newt can defeat Little Zero. Newt carries some additional assets:

1. Unlike any other candidate, he has the innate ability to make Little Zero look really stupid. Think about the effect upon LIttle Zero’s supporters and base when they see how stupid he is. It will demoralize them.

2. Think beyond the election. The MSM will engage in the same campaign against our President as they did against Bush. Remember how one of the things that aggravated us about Bush was that he didn’t fight back? Newt can win the ‘thrust and parry; with the media. We’ve seen that during the debates when he repeatedly reduced them to imbeciles. Achieving our goals AFTER the election will require that the MSM monster be cut down to size. Newt can do that. Mitt cannot.

3. Foreign Policy. MItt’s foreign policy credentials pale against Newt’s. Right now the world is amore dangerous place than it has been in a long time. Now is not the time for OJT.

But where have I said that Mitt’s the guy? I haven’t endorsed a candidate and don’t plan to. I’m just raising issues for discussion and debate.

In my last article I stated that I could live with Cain, Perry, or Romney as the nominee. And I could live with Gingrich too. If it’s Gingrich then I’ll vote for Gingrich and just be really pessimistic about our chances winning the election and then governing.

Mr. Swindle, major flaw comparing Bill Clinton to John Edwards and Anthony Weiner. Bill Clinton is one of our most revered Presidents, according to Democrats, that has ever held the office of President. He definitely did not sabotage his political career and his supporters hopes. He had serious baggage with his sexual escapades and was able to rise above all of it because of his charismatic personality and his ability to see the writing on the wall and gravitate toward the center when his reelection was in jeopardy. If the voters can overlook all of Bill Clinton’s baggage to make him a two term President, then maybe the voters can overlook Newt’s baggage too. People are fed up with political correctness and will flock to a candidate with intelligence who’ll tell the truth about Obama without any qualms or timidness. Look at Donald Trumps temporary rise to the top of the polls because of his willingness to articulate what many people think about Obama. I’m sending Newt a check this morning.

It’s not a flaw to compare Clinton to Edwards/Weiner. The difference is just that Clinton was smarter and more talented and better able to bounce back. Resiliency is one of the characteristics of many successful, competent hypomanics. That we’re even talking about Newt now is evidence that it’s present within him too.

“If the voters can overlook all of Bill Clinton’s baggage to make him a two term President, then maybe the voters can overlook Newt’s baggage too. People are fed up with political correctness and will flock to a candidate with intelligence who’ll tell the truth about Obama without any qualms or timidness. Look at Donald Trumps temporary rise to the top of the polls because of his willingness to articulate what many people think about Obama. I’m sending Newt a check this morning.”

The cartoon did make me feel better. Thanks! There’s very little to make me feel better about the situation we find our country in. I’m certainly willing to overlook imperfections in a candidate’s personal life and am willing to get too close to the flame and burn my wings for a candidate who will stand up and articulate the thoughts and principles that I believe in. I’m sick and tired of the McCains and Romneys who want to take the “high” road and be civil. What’s the point of being “civil” when our country is being destroyed from within and “fundamentally being changed” by people who hate our country. I want a candidate who takes the gloves off and hits hard. I’ve never been a Newt fan but I believe he has the characteristics to be a strong President and put our country on the right path again.

Texmom’s comments have left me pondering just how much corruption a person with Newt’s background of matrimonial infidelity might bring in to an already corruption-riddled Washington. I’ve always had a sneaking fondness for Newt because I admire intelligence, but, in keeping with the fairy tale theme of this article, I was hoping for a white knight in shining armor. Maybe a smart Newt/knight is close enough.

I still think Perry would have been our best choice. For one, his newest ad has him being the first politician I’ve heard outright call Obama’s policies socialist. It is maddening to know that a principled, aggressive job creator who is likeable in every situation except these million debates is unelectable. It is a sign of the shallowness of our country. Words speaking louder than actions.

I have always maintained that capitalism with some corruption is always better for the People than socialism which is always corrupt.

I’m with you but don’t think we should give up on Perry yet. On this magic theme, Dave has crossed out political comptentance, and for the current public mind, I sadly admit he is right. But the actual comptentance is there. Perry is rolling out plans, and most of them are pretty good, certainly better than Cain’s naive and shortsited fare. Perry’s basic thrust is that we can fix ourselves with renewed federalism and fiscal responsibility. Idea wise, this is the best in the field. Then, using DS’s most excellent personal demons test, Cain and Newt both seem more ruled by their demons than in control of them for the reasons DS mentioned. Whereas Perry’s demon is debate skill!? This makes his demon the most visible, which is really the problem, everyone can see it (whereas even after reading, or not, this article Newt’s demon still hides from some). But Perry’s demon is also the most inconsquential to governance and also the most easily vanquished.

Well, I read the entire article (read the part covering Gingrich twice) & do not see any evidence of a compelling argument that points to a likely case of bad governing on the part of a Gingrich administration. You say he is not “authentic.” Perhaps this is more of a reflection on your disapproval of his centrist positions than any real deficiencies on Gingrich’s part. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit on just why he cannot be trusted, beyond just what you base on his personal history (divorces, affairs).

DS: “Does it mean that the great battles of human history — that stretch out across the millennia and involved hundreds of millions of people — boil down to contests between those who have mastered their demons and those mastered by them?”

Yes. The explanation is based on the truth taht there are two human natures – one animal – one Spirit – we are animals made in the image of God. When man rejects God’s Spirit he becomes purely animal – an incomplete man mastered by his demons – not a real man. When man accepts God’s Spirit his animal nature becomes moderated – he becomes master of his demons – a real man with full human nature.

It took several decades for the left wing loons to completely take over the Democrats. But thru persistence they accomplished the task of changing their party so radically that JFK would not recognize it today. Can you imagine the shock of a JFK if confronted by Pelosi or Obama? Conservatives are going to have to be similarly diligent in taking the Republicans away from the RINO’s. But first they must defeat Obama or there will be no America remaining to rebuild. If Mitt can get the job done then so be it. Then the task must be to go to work on Mitt and begin the rebuilding of the Republicans with the solid conservatives that we now have. Rubio, DeMint, Jindal, Kasich, Snyder, Bachmann, Walker, McConnell, and many more. If we nominate a candidate who carries such baggage that he/she goes down in flames before the Obama hate machine then we are doomed. Win the damned election then go to work internally to get the party on the “right” course. Ronnie is dead. By the way, let ‘em attack Mitt’s Mormanism. The vast majority of Americans are repulsed by attacks on a person’s religion.

” The vast majority of Americans are repulsed by attacks on a person’s religion.” Yes nominally. But after decades of a culture war stoked by the media tales of the social conservative Boogy Man, what are the chancres that someone in the middle, a fiscally conservative Democrat, is going to go in the booth and punching a ticket for the Mormon? To them Mormons are the religious that the Religious Right think of as weird. The press won’t have to attack his Mormonism, they will, and have, mention it constantly. That is their MO with Mormons if whom they don’t approve. Harry Reid is rarely mentioned as Mormon. Just try to find an article on Stephanie Meyer that doesn’t mention her religion. With the socially liberal/fiscally conservative or moderate types, there is often a gulf of difference between what they will advocate and what they will actually do. For a random example think of Hollywood execs who will fight fo gay marriage but then hire straight actors to play even gay roles.

Before reading this intriguing article I had a discussion with a conservative friend during which I said “If it comes down to O vs. Newt, I’ll of course vote for Newt — but with grave misgivings.” I understand exactly what you’re getting at, Mr. Swindle. It’s not a matter of the “baggage” being so bad in the grand scheme of things, it’s what the baggage indicates about the man’s personality. In Newt’s case, he’s a brilliant political warrior whose policies generally would be to the right of O’s. But he’s also an egotist/narcissist … he thinks every situation is about him, every stage is a place for him to act out his psychodrama. That’s a very grave liability, just as it was for Clinton. Would he, on foreign policy, make some grand gesture that betrays the U.S. but makes him feel good about himself? It can’t be ruled out.

I also have grave misgivings about Mitt, but for very different reasons. Do we prosecute the struggle to remove O only to end up with O lite? What sort of judges would he name to the Supreme Court — Stephens types who are technically “Republicans” but then turn out to be from the Rocky/Javits wing of the party? Still, I would vote for Mitt, too, if that’s what it takes to get O away from the controls. Alas, my preferred candidate — George Washington — isn’t available.

Roughly 17% of married Americans have been married more than twice. 56% of Americans are married , so that’s roughly 23,000,000 potential voters who don’t care about Newts triple play. Seven Presidents ( that we know of ) had extra marital affairs while in the White House: Jefferson, Garfield, Harding, F D Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton .. And Clinton had MULTIPLE affairs. Newt’s affair ( singular ) is over and done with. Who knows how many Presidents had affairs before becoming President.. I can name a few.. Eisenhower comes to mind. Anyway, being in the wine business, I’ll use the parameters I’m comfortable with. fermentation is over. Barrel ageing done, barrel tasted, hot and cold stabilized , filtered and bottled. cellared for more than 10 years.. ready to drink. Newt has my vote.. And will win SC hands down.

I like your portrayal of the situation 100%. I agree completely that Newt is ready now. Everyone should read his plan and understand his promise to repeal the illegal imperial edicts, oh sorry, executive orders of President Zero, the afternoon of his inauguration. Read his offered contract with America here:

Sex isn’t the problem. The problem is his endorsement of “W’s” medicare drug plan, his endorsement of mandating insurance, his endorsement of the global warming scam, his all too familiar willingness to compromise with the left; these are the real baggage. All the holier than thou folks need to get over the fact that grown ups have sex and often don’t live up to their ideals. None, not one, of the so called, “social issues” was addressed by the framers, hence, they are NONE of the federal government’s business.

“W” was the ideal for the social cons and gave us the biggest growth in social spending commitments since LB frickin J.

Look to your church for morality, I’ll settle for mere sanity in the government.

Proreason 1: “Savaging either one of them (Gingrich or Romney) does no good for those of us who wish to defeat the most dangerous person on the planet.”

Agreed. In spite of his faults I’m tending toward Gingrich because he has publically called for enforcement of the 10th amendment (a Constitutional limit on the power of central government); he has publically announced a plan for opposing Supreme Court judicial supremacy (restoring the co-equal responsibility of the other two branches of federal government in deciding whether or not a federal law or regulation is Constitutional); and above all he has publically defended the natural law of our Declaration of Independence (which trumps the Constitution its self). I have heard no such all-American stuff from Romney.

Newt Gingrich reminds me of Thomas Jefferson – flawed personally – but correct in his judgments regarding the nature of the individual – and the nature of government (a small group of other people after all) – and the nature of the relationship between government and the individual. Mitt Romney is a nice guy, but he just reminds me of a politician; he is no Thomas Jefferson.

Regarding your section on manic disorders of leaders and artists and controlling demons, I recalled this dialogue from 1776 taken from the letters of Abagail and John Adams:
JA: Why Abby? You must tell me why. I have always been discontented. I know that. But lately I find that I reek of discontentment. It fills my throat, and it floods my brain. And sometimes I fear there is no longer a dream, but only the discontentment.
AA: John, can you really think so little of yourself? And can you think so little of me to believe that I would marry the man you’ve described?

Within the context of the debates, Newt is doing three things right.
1. He is supportative of the other candidates. (Ron’s 11th commandment)
2. He attacks the current administration.
3. He attacks the press.
The other candidates would do well to emmulate those positives, thus supporting the base, and not going all stupid in clobbering each other like a dysfunctional family. One needs to remember who is the enemy.
Newt’s baggage issue remains and scored a negative when he went after Ryan’s plan.

I liked the article. I liked especially the intellectual play of the article. But that intellectual play can run every which way. After all, consider what two presidents most had their demons under control in living memory. Wouldn’t that be Gerald Ford for the pubbies and Jimmy (I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust in my heart.)Carter for the dems.
…………..
I think that Gingrich had the best explanation of the difference between himself and Romney in one of the last debates. He said Romney would make a good manager if you thought only a little incremental change was necessary to right the country. If you wanted more radical change, you would want to vote for him (Gingrich).

David Swindle, interesting perspective into what makes people tick. I have both read and pondered about this subject for quite a few years.

Your position basically boils down to a question of trust, as in… would you as a voter be able to trust a particular candidate to overcome their past and follow through on their stated promises, or is their past a bridge too far for any important future endeavors. That, of course, is just one of the key questions that every voter has to consider before they get ready to pull the lever.

But many people have asked and still wonder, “Can a person grow and actually change inside?” Personally, my answer would be an unequivocal yes. But I would have to qualify that by saying that my observations have shown that those kind of changes are… sadly too rare, and always a matter of degree. But they do happen, especially and more often when people sincerely repent and turn to faith in God.

As far as Newt is concerned, my gut tells me that his past baggage will not hold him back… either when it comes to exposing and defeating the most dangerous man in America, nor when it comes to repealing the madness and restoring the nation. And who knows… maybe Newt will be our Churchill, warts and all.

But if Mitt or any of the others are nominated, I will fight equally hard to support them.

For the sake of our loved ones… Obama must!!! be defeated.
Our job, pass the word. Or better yet… get involved.

This is possibly the dumbest, most shallow political analysis I have ever read, and I’ve read a lot. Breathtakingly, mind-numbingly awful. Why should somebody not vote for Gingrich? Hmmm…

Supported Dede Scozzafeva

Cheated on his wife

Cheated on his party and the American people sitting on a love-seat with Nancy Pelosi promising to spend mountains of government cash hunting ManBearPig (Global Warming).

Supports Cap and Trade

Supported TARP

Supports the individual mandate for people to be forced to buy health insurance (he calls this a “variation” on Obamacare)

Supported Obama’s policies of increased federal control of education – even went on a tour with Al Sharpton to drum up support.

Voted to create the Department of Education

Huge fan of Alvin Toffler’s philosophies (even wrote the forward to one of his books), which advocate doing away with our “outdated” Constitution and centralizing more control with the Washington elites.

Gingrich bemoaned in a speech that “The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution…” [darn that stupid, outdated Constitution, telling politicians what they can't do]

Wants that socialist slime-bag FDR’s face on Mt. Rushmore. The closest thing this country has had to a Lenin, and Gingrich wants his smirking mug up there. Gingrich has openly idolized FDR and the socialist New Deal throughout his career.

I could go on. Any one of these should be a giant warning light next to his name. All of them? Are you freaking insane? Especially his support of the individual mandate!!!

It is amazing that people who know all of the fact you point out will still support Newt as the “lessor of two evils” yet call Ron Paul “crazy”.

While I agree that Paul’s blaming Islamofacism on US foreign policy is 3/4 BS, it’s hard to find fault with most of his other points. Even harder to find any as blatantly against the Constitution as things like the department of education, the individual mandate, and TARP.

If Paul is “crazy” then Newt simply has to be “CINO,” because it’s becoming clear that what has come to be called RINO, is actually what the GOP has become, no conservatives welcomed unless their exclusively bible thumping social cons.

Possessed by his own personal demons, the forked-tongued, teenage Lucifer that Obama is has proven too good at captivating the minds of our silly little children voters, and he would wipe the floor up with such a goody-two-shoes flip-flopper as Mitt Romney.

Gingrich’s amazing bounce-back into the running, and now in a tie for the lead, shows he has mastered his demons while losing none of the power, presence, and clarity of expression needed to overcome a demonic opponent who is steadily destroying our country.

Actually, I have to agree with Carville. IT”S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!!!! If this economy doesn’t do a quick turnaround, all other conservative issues won’t really matter will it?! We have already been downgraded once(the first time in American history and looking towards a second). Foreign Policy, pppfffttt! We will be too broke to fund our military. Illegal Imigration, pppfffttt! We will be a beggar country and the illegals will go home to better oportunities. Abortion, pppfffttt! Sex will be the only affordable entertainment(FREE).

We gotta do some serious financial turnaround or we won’t have many options. Cain is a life trained mathmetician and S E E S numbers. Every POTUS has a cabinet and I personally would salivate at an Allan West VP spot. Cain the number cruncher and West the foreign policy cruncher!!!!!

AAAhhh, what the hell. Newt could be a UN ambassador and preach to foreign dignitaries about how great the US used to be. BTW, I would love to see Cain take on a “US out of the UN and the UN out of the US” stance!!!!!!!!!

And what is your empirical basis for claiming that? Because what you’re arguing here is a factual claim: more voters will be won over by Newt’s debating skills than will be lost by his narcissistic, amoral, untrustworthy temperament. So what data do you have to present in support of that? I stand by the poll cited in which almost half of voters say that his “personal baggage” disqualifies him for them. So far I have yet to see that independent, on-the-fence voters care so much about dazzling debates. All I see is movement conservatives fantasizing about Gingrich debating Obama and how much fun that would be.

It’s almost impossible in a close race (“almost half of voters”) to poll results of a debate that hasn’t happened yet, but perfectly reasonable to expect a strong performance to be enough to tip the balance one way or another, pro or con.

Ron Paul, my friends, is the only candidate, liberal or republican that can use his head, his cool, and his consistency during a debate to win the presidency over Barak Obama. He is so far, an ‘indie’ candidate. His policies echo a well balanced package – little government, no war mongering, freedom of individual choice, and a free market.

Freedom is my main concern, I don’t like the idea of a military state seizing control of every little aspect of my life and controlling by fear. Ron Paul gives the POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

Certainly Newt’s past transgressions show a remarkable drift in judgment. I could move past his infidelity, though. What worries me no end about Newt is this question: What kind of operation would he run? Do we not see the possibility that the mercurial, undisciplined character of the leader would surely be reflected in the staff? I worry that a Gingrich administration could reek of corruption and scandal, due in no small part to his disinterest (inability?) in managing his people. And as for the inevitable antagonistic media coverage, would President Gingrich pick his battles and kill ‘em with a twinkle in his eye, or have a protracted and messy war with them?

Seriously, close your eyes and picture Newt in the Oval. Is that picture more reminiscent of Reagan…or Nixon?

So then the dilemma is this: is the best president the smartest guy in the room, or the guy who can run the tightest ship? And I’m not trying to say Romney’s the guy here, I really don’t have an answer to this question. I actually do like Newt for the most part, and what fun it would be to see him debate Obumble! I’m just really afraid of the damage that could be done by a West Wing that turns out to be a hot mess because nobody is minding the store. Which, of course, is exactly why character does indeed count.

A lot is going to hinge on how much Gingrich trusts & follows his chosen advisors. He demonstrates a pattern of being quite impulsive at times & this poses risks. One can not come away with this without comparing him to the likes of Obama, an ideologue who is a shill for the far leftist interests & agendas. I don’t imagine Gingrich assembling a large group of “czars” whose purpose is to userpt the rules laid down by the Constitution. I don’t imagine Gingrich going around Congress to attain his goals; on the contrary, I would imagine him working with Congress probably more than most presidents, due to all his experience working in the House.

When are people going to get it through their heads that ANY of the Republican candidates running for office this year, no matter how flawed, inept, whatever, you-fill-in-the-proverbial-blank, is a better choice to run the country than effing Obama. You all need to write that down at least a hundred times or as many times it takes to get this very simple concept through your thick heads!! Obama is BAD NEWS. This will never change. The sooner he’s out of office, the better. I really don’t give a damn at this point WHO takes his place. Yes…..HE’S THAT BAD.

For what percentage of undecided general election voters will debate performance be the primary determinant that nudges them into our camp?

Dave Swindle

And what is your empirical basis for claiming that?
//////
Reagan’s presidential bids turned on his debate performances. Also Bush senior but mostly because of the errors of his opponent in his first race. And then his own errors in the second race. Both of Bush junior’s democratic opponents were stiffs on the stage next to him. Hard to believe, but they made him look eloquent and outgoing. There was nothing about John McCain’s performance against Obama that made him stand out. That was a draw—which was interpreted as a win for Obama.